|
There have been a number of interesting threads in recent days that focus on the phenomenon of individuals in our society committing violent acts. Some use guns, while another relied upon arson and an airplane. There have been a surprising range of opinions put forward, ranging from some attempts to put the one fellow's manifesto into an understandable context, to beliefs that he must have been mentally ill, to utter contempt for such actions.
Many of the comments that I have read involve emotional responses, which is natural. These types of events, even if the take place in a distant city or state, tend to connect on an emotional level. There can be stumbling blocks to having dispassionate discussions about “violence,” for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most obvious is that our nation has a long history of violence. We are a violent culture. It is likely that a large number of us have had experiences with violence in our lives: some as children; others as adults; many in the context of relationships with a violent partner; others as the victim of a violent crime; and still others who have had a relative and/or friend assaulted, or even murdered. I doubt that I am unique in that I've experienced as much violence in my life as I have, and I recognize that there are times in discussions – here and in other contexts – that those experiences influence some of my opinions, on some emotional level.
In this essay, however, I will attempt to present a few points that I think are both interesting and important, in as unemotional and rational manner as I can. Best of luck!
Most people recognize that there a number of types of violence. In relationships, there can be physical, sexual, and/or emotional violence. For this discussion, I'll focus on physical violence. Also, rather than in interpersonal relationships per say, let's use the context of “society.” Of course, that can include personal relationships with co-workers, people in a class room, and similar public settings.
Next, there are two categories of violence we can identify: the first is aggressive violence; the second is violence in the context of self-defense, or the defense of those close to us. If a person attacks you in an attempt to rob you, and you defend yourself, there is an obvious distinction. The robber was aggressively violent, while you were justifiably exercising your right to self-defense.
Often, when we hear about a teacher who shots co-workers, people will think that she must have been mentally ill. Likewise, if a person flies his airplane into a building, people suspect that he was mentally ill. Hopefully, we can all agree that these individuals were not the picture of stability or mental health. Yet, it is frequently inaccurate to view their actions as representative of “mental illness.”
Under the law, attempts at “not guilty, due to mental illness” focus on the issue of if the individual recognized that their actions were illegal or not. It isn't an issue of if they felt their action was either justified or right. It is, rather, if they knew their actions violated the law. Hence, a person can be experiencing the symptoms of their mental illness, feel justified in taking an action, but still be guilty. Their illness could be considered as a potentially mitigating circumstance in the sentencing phase of a trial.
A very important fact to be aware of is that, despite the best-selling headlines of trashy newspapers such as the New York Post, people with most major mental illnesses are not prone to violence due to the illness. The single most important exception to that would be the disease of paranoid schizophrenia. However, as a rule, people suffering from major mental illnesses are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, than to commit one.
Equally important for this discussion is an understanding of what are known as “personality disorders.” Rather than attempt a long and detailed discussion of these, it might be better to explain these as the behaviors that people learn in their childhood and family life experiences, which they engage in as attempts to get their needs met. Certainly, in any discussion of families, there is a genetic component. Yet, much of these behaviors are also “environmental.”
We have probably all had the experience of meeting a person – in our homes, at school, or in the workplace – who believes they have the “right” to get their needs met by the use of some form of force. They might be verbally aggressive, they may attempt to intimidate, or they might be physically violent. A percentage of them may actually be true sociopaths/psychopaths. Others are a more generic form of bullying thug.
There are certain dynamics that we can recognize, in individual family households, communities, and the larger society. Certain types of social dysfunction greatly increase the level of stress within that system. Economic strains, as well as substance abuse, are examples. In our own culture, the role that violence plays can also be related to how those viewed as “powerful” tend to problem-solve. The example of Martin Luther King, Jr., encountering young men in poor urban neighborhoods, who questioned his advocacy of non-violence in the face of Uncle Sam's extremely violent approach to problem-solving comes to mind. In this era, we witness the anti-choice extremists advocating the cold-blooded murder of doctors, and tea-baggers attending public events while carrying weapons. I am also reminded of the hateful crowds that flocked to hear VP candidate Sarah Palin in 2008.
What we have today is a nation which not only is experiencing a very high degree of economic stress, that is putting serious strain on the social fabric of our communities, but also a large segment of the population that is invested in a delusional form of group-thought. This is not new: whenever a population is forced to live at a certain stressful conditions, tyrants attempt to get them to blame their low level of being on a common “enemy.” President Obama's birth certificate. Poor people. Ethnic minorities. Others.
In such times, two things often hold true: First, that the most incapable and unattractive politicians are able to rise to a relatively high level of power; and second, that those prone to the use of violence for “problem solving” and getting what they identify as their needs met, feel they have license to maim and kill. The first group tend to be amoral idiots such as George W. Bush. The second group are rarely “mentally ill” in an individual sense, but rather, are highly disturbed but sane individuals who are part of a larger, group delusional system. And both are extremely dangerous.
What we are seeing is part and parcel for a decaying society. We need to understand that. There is zero possibility of going back to the image of the 1950s, that the tea-baggers view as the American ideal. That's a delusion. There are, in fact, only two options. The first is complete collapse and decay. The second is the germination of a new society. A sane society. It remains an option, at this point. But, I suspect that option will not be available to us for much longer.
Thanks for reading this.
Peace, H2O Man
|